(MONEY Magazine) – Since her husband Robert died last year, Joan Rosener, 69, of Coconut Creek, Fla. (shown on page 137) has tried mightily to educate herself about financial issues. One of her first moves was to visit her local Social Security office to make sure she was getting the right monthly benefit check. "The representative was very pleasant until I asked for a full printout of the information I needed to check my benefit," Rosener says. Then the tone of the encounter changed abruptly. "He told me I wouldn't understand it, that this was an internal document and that he could lose his job if he gave it to me," she recalls. Rosener went home with no document and no explanation of how the agency figures out her benefit. "I have walked out of banks that thought I was unable to understand their check-pricing policies and gone to a different bank," she says. "But you can't do that with Social Security."

Despite all of the discussions about Social Security not being around in the future, most Americans place a great deal of trust in the day-to-day functioning of the $6.5 billion Social Security Administration--perhaps more than in any other U.S. agency. This 62-year-old bureaucracy, after all, assigns us our identity; without our Social Security number, we don't exist financially. We expect Social Security staffers to answer questions about our federal pension benefits, follow us when we move in retirement and pay us what we deserve. But how well does the agency really serve its core customers--the 30 million Americans receiving retirement benefits (average: $746 a month) and the 145 million people paying $375 million in taxes into the system each year? MONEY decided to find out.

Much as we put the Internal Revenue Service to the test last January (see "MONEY Audits the IRS"), we spent the past two months taking a close look at Social Security. To do this, we called and visited dozens of the agency's 1,300 offices around the country with the help of 59 retirees receiving Social Security checks. We also checked benefits calculations, tested the agency's controversial Website and talked to Social Security officials as well as to experts on Capitol Hill and at various interest groups.

Our conclusion: Social Security's computers in its suburban Baltimore headquarters are doing a good job of computing benefits checks. And its Website (www.ssa.gov) is worth checking out. It's user-friendly and packed with information, answering such common Social Security questions as how benefits are figured. Because of privacy concerns, though, you won't be able to get your Personal Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement online until the end of the year.

The performance of local offices is shockingly bad, however. Largely to blame is a ridiculously ad hoc management system in which the local offices are allowed to operate like independent fiefdoms, making up their own rules as they go along. Service is inconsistent from office to office, meaning that a beneficiary in Seattle might be able to get information that someone in Atlanta could not. So overall we give Social Security just a passing C grade.

AMONG OUR FINDINGS:

More than two-thirds of the testers had a bad experience dealing with Social Security staffers. They were given incorrect information, treated rudely or found it impossible to get through to the agency on the phone.

When they called the 800 number, 20% of our testers (12) were told to call their local office for an appointment. But when they did, nine were told they couldn't make appointments. In fact, nearly one in 10 testers couldn't call for an appointment because their local office had no listed number. Surprisingly, we learned that roughly a third of Social Security's local offices--462 of them--do not publish their phone numbers.

Only 20% of the testers who asked for a printout documenting their benefits calculation were able to get it.

While no one was getting shortchanged, Social Security did get the numbers wrong sometimes. The 12 testers who were given the printout showing their benefits calculation are receiving the correct check, according to a recalculation by Bruce Schobel, a former Social Security actuary who is now a corporate vice president and actuary with New York Life. But another three were told they might be getting too much money from Social Security, though they weren't told why.

The poor customer service our testers received was ironic, given that "world-class customer service" is one of the agency's major stated goals. Yet our results don't surprise those who routinely observe Social Security's operations. Says Rep. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee: "My No. 1 constituent problem since the beginning of my tenure in Congress in 1987 has been problems with Social Security." (For advice on how you can get better service from the Social Security Administration, see the box on page 140.)

The heart of our investigation was our field test. MONEY correspondents identified 59 ordinary Social Security beneficiaries around the U.S. who wanted to make sure that they were receiving the correct monthly benefit. Each of the testers then called Social Security's toll-free 800 number (800-772-1213) to request an appointment with one of 46 local offices where they could have their benefit calculated and explained by a customer representative. In the 12 cases where a tester was able to get a computer printout, we had actuary Schobel check the benefit calculation for accuracy.

Below are the results of our examination, in order of importance, followed by our recommendations for how Social Security can do a better job serving you:

Accuracy of benefit computation: B. Although getting the Social Security Administration to check the accuracy of your retirement benefit is even more difficult than finding a great party on New Year's Eve, don't worry. Retirees are probably receiving the right-size checks. Bruce Schobel says that "in every case where I was given complete information about the earnings record of the tester and when they started receiving benefits, I was able to verify Social Security's numbers to the penny." The agency itself believes that the accuracy rate on benefit payments is 99.8%.

Still, we didn't award Social Security an A here, because only 12 of our 59 testers were able to get the complete information--including their earnings record and date they started getting benefits--needed to check the accuracy of their benefit. Fully 25 testers (42%) simply received a verbal or written confirmation of the benefit they are receiving, with no explanation or recalculation. Another 22 testers (37%) didn't get anything. Finally, three testers were told that they "might" be getting overpayments--ranging from about $3 a month to as much as $100. Social Security's general policy on overpayments is to make you pay the money back unless you are without fault in causing the overpayment and paying it back would cause financial hardship. But the representatives our testers dealt with did not mention any plans to check further or ask for their surplus benefits. Says Rep. Bunning: "I am not aware of any regulations that would give individual customer service representatives the authority to waive recovery of overpayments. If this is going on, it is something we should look into."

Why is it so tough to get detailed, personal benefits information from Social Security? The agency prefers that you not ask how it arrives at the size of your check. "Benefits are automatically recalculated annually by a computer," says deputy commissioner for operations Janice Warden, "so people should not feel it is necessary to go to a Social Security office to check the amount."

800-number service: C+. It's not hard to connect to Social Security's toll-free line, but actually getting to talk to one of the 4,000 phone reps there takes patience. In our investigation, 95% of the 42 testers who called got through in five rings or less. That's pretty good. Cynthia Grimm, an Arlington, Va. consultant specializing in the use of toll-free customer service lines, says: "A typical service goal is responding to 80% of the calls in less than 20 seconds." But a disappointing 69% of our testers were able to speak to a representative there within five minutes--a much lower rate than the 83% Social Security said it achieved in 1996. Worse, seven of our testers waited on hold for five to 10 minutes and six waited longer than 10 minutes before either giving up or finally hearing a phone rep's voice.

Even when our testers got through, they generally didn't get what they wanted. For instance, operators told 93% of the testers that they could not make appointments for them at local offices. In two cases, operators promised to call testers back with an appointment date but never did.

Responsiveness of local customer service reps: C. If you've visited one of the Social Security Administration's 1,300-plus field offices, you may have seen a posted copy of its customer service pledge. It says that when you do business with Social Security, you can expect to encounter knowledgeable employees who are courteous, treat you with dignity and respect, and explain "our decisions so you can understand why and how we made them." But Rep. Bunning suggests that "most people who are working for Social Security should probably read their customer service pledge again."

Indeed, when MONEY's testers asked the local reps questions, most of them did not get a satisfactory answer. The 47 people in our study who could not get a copy of their benefit record were given widely varying--and in some cases, just plain wrong--reasons for not getting the information. For instance, Maria Booth, 71, of Washington, D.C. was sent away from her local office with no information but was told staffers there would get it for her. The next day the customer service rep called to say she didn't want to hand over Booth's records but would explain them to her at a later date. Booth tried unsuccessfully for two weeks to set up an appointment. Finally, on the 16th day, she got a call back from the rep, who said she was going on vacation and steered Booth to someone else. But when Booth came in, that rep didn't have the information the first rep had promised. Joseph Carotenuto, 75, of San Francisco got equally unpleasant treatment. When he asked to take a computer printout of his records with him, the local rep ripped it up, saying it was an "internal document." Deputy commissioner Warden says it is not.

William "Joe" Canepa, 68, of Affton, Mo. (shown on page 139) left the South St. Louis office in August thinking he'd found "a pot of gold." That's because the rep told him that after five or six months he would start receiving a check paying him the Social Security cost-of-living increases he had not received in 1995 and 1996 and his benefit would increase by an unspecified amount. But our actuary didn't think Canepa was due any extra money. So Canepa called the office back and spoke with another rep, who explained that the first answer was indeed wrong and that Canepa was getting the correct benefit. Canepa, who still works part time as a wine and spirits salesman, says he was surprised by "the slipshod way this was handled."

Asked to comment on these mistakes, Warden said: "When you have the number of people and actions we handle in this agency I cannot tell you that nothing will ever go wrong. We process 7.5 million claims a year and take 17 million account-number applications. I do apologize."

Telephone access to local offices: C. Warden says that there are no plans to publish the phone numbers of the 462 local Social Security offices that didn't have them. Reason: In 1989, Congress ordered a cutback on local-office phone listings once the 800 number went into effect, figuring that centralized phone customer service would save money.

Of our 21 testers who did get a local number, only half who called for an appointment were able to connect after dialing once. Nine had to call two or more times before anyone answered. Jane Knol, 74, of Watseka, Ill. says she phoned the Kankakee office once an hour for nine hours over two days and always got a busy signal, so she asked her daughter-in-law to take over dialing for her. All together, they placed 104 calls in the course of four days before breaking through the busy signal. Another tester, Chris Doenges, 74, of Roswell, Ga., had to call the Marietta office 55 times before she was able to talk to someone.

Warden says the agency is working on improving local phone service by installing voice mail, adding that Social Security encourages people to call its national toll-free number if they have questions. But 12 testers were told by the agency's 800-number operators to phone the local office directly for an appointment.

Getting a face-to-face appointment: D. Only five of our 59 testers were able to secure appointments at their nearby Social Security office. The rest were told by either the 800-number operator or the local office receptionist to just "drop in." For example, Olga Celli, 73, of Pennsauken, N.J. spoke on the phone with a toll-free rep and was told that Social Security does not make appointments. But that advice was flat wrong. When Celli visited the Camden office she saw a sign saying: "Can't wait? Please see the receptionist for an appointment or call toll-free 800-772-1213. It's easy. It's fast."

Actually, the Social Security Administration leaves the decision on whether to make an appointment for anything other than filing or refiling a claim up to the local office. Sites with heavy walk-in traffic may refuse to give appointments; 400 people sometimes drop in at a no-appointments-allowed New York City office. This mishmash of an appointment policy only creates confusion among the public, says Lisa Davis of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "An agency that affects so many lives needs to have uniformity. A person in Mobile needs to expect the same treatment and the same information as someone in Great Falls, Mont.," she says.

Waiting time to see a customer rep: C+. The 57 testers who tracked the time at the local offices they visited waited 23 minutes, on average, before they could talk to a customer rep. Four of the lucky five who got appointments, however, were able to meet with a staffer within 20 minutes. But the fifth had to wait in a crowded Washington, D.C. office for 45 minutes before she was allowed to talk to someone. More than two-thirds of the testers without appointments waited 20 minutes or less to speak to a rep. The other third was evenly split between those who waited 21 to 45 minutes and those who cooled their heels for 46 minutes to an hour.

Disposition of receptionists and the physical condition of local offices: B. All but two of the testers described the receptionists they met as helpful, friendly or at least polite. And a full 68% had no complaints about the physical condition of the Social Security offices, describing them as clean but "spartan" or "adequate"--pretty much what they expected to find in a government agency.

The variation in the look of the Social Security offices was striking, though. While some testers encountered torn chairs and scribbles on the walls at one office near downtown Atlanta, others found terrazzo floors and oak-stained literature racks on the walls in middle-class Longview, Wash. One Fort Lauderdale office was particularly uninviting. A sign in a customer service window read: "If you have a communicable disease, let us know."

Told the results of our test, Social Security's new commissioner, Kenneth Apfel, said: "It seems to me that if you have a system where some information is handled in a more customer-responsible way than in others, we need to resolve the inconsistencies." We believe that implementing the following four recommendations would be a good start:

Create a consumer affairs office or an office of the ombudsman. Consultant Cynthia Grimm suggests that Social Security follow the practice of many companies and other government agencies by creating an independent ombudsman or consumer affairs office for people who cannot get satisfaction working through the system. "This would be great for the customer and the agency too," she says. "When a customer has to make a lot of calls to a company or agency to get a problem solved, that creates a lot of negative word of mouth. The sooner you can catch an unhappy client in your safety net, the better."

Publish phone numbers for all local offices. Since people sometimes need to visit their local Social Security offices, they should be able to find the local phone number easily. The Social Security Administration ought to ask Congress for the funds to restore the unpublished listings.

Require local offices to make appointments when people request them. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare's Lisa Davis points out that Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom have hearing problems or aren't comfortable talking on the phone, "often need to sit down face to face with someone to get answers to their questions or an explanation of a written communication." They should be able to schedule such a meeting in advance. Making appointments would reduce walk-in traffic, cut down on waiting-room delays and let customer reps become familiar with a client's file before he or she arrives.

Roll out more public education programs. Davis also suggests the agency start providing more public service announcements about future changes in the program. "For example, many people don't know that the eligibility age for full retirement benefits will start going up in the year 2000, and they need to know how that will affect their retirement planning," she says. If today's workers had this kind of information, they might have fewer questions about Social Security just before they retire. And that would let the customer service reps help people handle more serious problems with Social Security.

Reporter associate: Michael Powe